MI Director Praises Bradford's "broader...academic vision"

[_Lemmie]

I can see that he modeled it on the Bible, but to call its genre Biblical implies similarities to other elements within the genre. Wasn't there a pretty long conversation recently that concluded the mythical Jesus was less likely than a historical one? (I hope I am stating that correctly but I defer to Kishkumen on this point.) I don't believe there is one single unique (i.e. not also in the Bible)character in the Book of Mormon that could be said to be modeled on the life of a historical person, although it's been a long time since I read it.

In that sense, maybe we need a subgenre-fictionalized biblical? or maybe pseudo-biblical?

You raise important questions here, Lemmie. Obviously, I would not blithely wander into a scholarly context making this kind of claim.

That said, one can surely contest the idea of excluding the Bible from this kind of discussion of its relationship to the texts modeled upon it. If we hold the Bible apart from such a proposed relationship, thus disallowing such a discussion, what do we then do with those ancient epics that were modeled on Homer? Is the alleged artificiality of Vergil's Aeneid, particularly in the many ways it mimics the works of Homer, grounds for excluding it from the same genre as Homer?

We are too accustomed to placing the Bible in its own special box on theological grounds. Better minds than mine have challenged that assumption. Robert M. Price put together his own collection of ancient Christian texts with the very aim of challenging it. On what grounds do we continue to privilege the Bible in the way that we do? I can understand why devoted creedal Christians accept the canonical argument of their tradition, but for those of us who do not accept such boundaries of classification (the ancient fathers saw these texts as doctrinally orthodox, etc.), why not think in terms of a Biblical genre founded on the Bible itself? I would say it already exists.

Interesting point. Personally I don't privilege the Bible at all, my distinction of historicity was based only on my perception of the acceptance of it being at least partially historical-- not in the supernatural sense, but only in the sense that the locations actually did exist, and possibly the existence of some of the people, sans supernatural experiences.

But I take your point, it seems reasonable to define the biblical genre as encompassing elements all along the spectrum from fully fictional to fully historical, wherever one's belief and/or rational evaluation puts an entry in this genre along that spectrum. Given that definition, I would happily put up for consideration things like Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, and yes, the Book of Mormon also.

[_Kishkumen]

But I take your point, it seems reasonable to define the biblical genre as encompassing elements all along the spectrum from fully fictional to fully historical, wherever one's belief and/or rational evaluation puts an entry in this genre along that spectrum. Given that definition, I would happily put up for consideration things like Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, and yes, the Book of Mormon also.

Ah, yes. Well, the idea of fictional vs. real and pseudepigraphic vs. genuine are, I would argue, interrelated with the concept of the canon. (Many people find these questions to be important because of their prior investment in the text for reasons determined largely by Judeo-Christian tradition.) The truth is that we have a difficult time telling how historical much of the Bible is or who the authors of the various texts actually are.

[_Doctor Scratch]

But I take your point, it seems reasonable to define the biblical genre as encompassing elements all along the spectrum from fully fictional to fully historical, wherever one's belief and/or rational evaluation puts an entry in this genre along that spectrum. Given that definition, I would happily put up for consideration things like Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress, and yes, the Book of Mormon also.

Ah, yes. Well, the idea of fictional vs. real and pseudepigraphic vs. genuine are, I would argue, interrelated with the concept of the canon. (Many people find these questions to be important because of their prior investment in the text for reasons determined largely by Judeo-Christian tradition.) The truth is that we have a difficult time telling how historical much of the Bible is or who the authors of the various texts actually are.

Reverend--does this mean that your views on the Book of Mormon vis-a-vis The Late War have shifted? Also, I'm curious what you think the implications of all of this are for Mopologetics, particularly given Hardy's FAIR address, and the implications (and later fallout) of last year's Hamblin/Jenkins debate....

[_Kishkumen]

Reverend--does this mean that your views on the Book of Mormon vis-a-vis The Late War have shifted? Also, I'm curious what you think the implications of all of this are for Mopologetics, particularly given Hardy's FAIR address, and the implications (and later fallout) of last year's Hamblin/Jenkins debate....

No, I wouldn't say that my views on the likely influence of The Late War on the Book of Mormon have shifted. The Late War is a Biblicization (with the theological apparatus that entails) of history. So, any discussion of the Biblical genre in the 19th century would have to include The Late War, in my opinion. The Book of Mormon was influenced by The Late War, and it, too, belongs to the Biblical genre I am proposing, but obviously it is doing something different. I would say that there is some merit to Vogel's view regarding Smith drawing on his life experience for fodder to create the story of the Book of Mormon, particularly in the early chapters of 1 Nephi. But Smith was not Biblicizing recognizable history as The Late War obviously is (although he is riffing on historical issues). Another strain of the Book of Mormon influence seems to come from Christian epic and utopian literature. A nice comparandum would perhaps be The Lusiads.

[_RockSlider]

Inspired Fiction is going to be taken as being offensive much like say cult.

I would prefer to not see it called that to avoid making this a derogatory term.

How referring to it as the inspired non-historical Book of Mormon to point out where one is coming from.

I believe this is the one hurdle which the apologist and church approach with great caution. They could lose so many over this. How to slowly indoctrinate the masses, memory holing the whole keystone absolute truth.

Seems a big step the borders are being allowed to be approached by FAIR.

[_Kishkumen]

Inspired Fiction is going to be taken as being offensive much like say cult.

I would prefer to not see it called that to avoid making this a derogatory term.

How referring to it as the inspired non-historical Book of Mormon to point out where one is coming from.

I believe this is the one hurdle which the apologist and church approach with great caution. They could lose so many over this. How to slowly indoctrinate the masses, memory holing the whole keystone absolute truth.

Seems a big step the borders are being allowed to be approached by FAIR.

Very true, Rock.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Inspired Fiction is going to be taken as being offensive much like say cult.

I would prefer to not see it called that to avoid making this a derogatory term.

How referring to it as the inspired non-historical Book of Mormon to point out where one is coming from.

I believe this is the one hurdle which the apologist and church approach with great caution. They could lose so many over this. How to slowly indoctrinate the masses, memory holing the whole keystone absolute truth.

Seems a big step the borders are being allowed to be approached by FAIR.

You make some good points, RockSlider. I wonder how this is going to go down, too. That something even remotely like this is being allowed at FAIR is, as you point out, earth-shattering. It could really only ever happen in a post-Mopologetics world. The real question is whether or not we will see further Mopologetic slugfests over this--and I mean along the lines of what happened with Ben Park, David Bokovoy, etc. versus Hamblin et al. a year or two back. Maybe they've decided that they've got to keep the peace at all costs, and so they are going to take one for the team and play nice as Book of Mormon historicity is quietly given the "memory hole" treatment, as you put it?

[_Gadianton]

An epic read, professor Scratch. The reveal that Fluhman was behind the whole thing all along left my head spinning and your command of Marxism is the stuff of legend.

Have the Mopologists abandoned their principal mission in life?

An important question. I mean, it's one thing to observe that Mopologetics is dead, but did it go down with an epic battle; a "band of brothers" defending the hill to the end? Or did they see the enemy approaching from afar and run?

As far as the Interpreter goes, yeah, they pretty much let it get run over because they were between a rock an a hard place. They could have kept it for themselves, but then it would have been near impossible to get the quota of articles to beat your predictions to the contrary. In order to win, they had to let it market forces take it to where it can maximize article production, which in a sense still vindicates your predictions since the cessation of Mopologetics articles.

Not only have we seen returning to shells on disparate blogs, but when is the last time you've heard of in-person get-togethers? Without assembling together in combined family home evenings and other gatherings for pats on the back and mockery of the critics, it's like coals in a fire that have separated from each other to burn out.

[_Kishkumen]

An epic read, professor Scratch. The reveal that Fluhman was behind the whole thing all along left my head spinning and your command of Marxism is the stuff of legend.

I thought the retooling of the MI happened in June of 2012.

[_Lemmie]

An epic read, professor Scratch. The reveal that Fluhman was behind the whole thing all along left my head spinning and your command of Marxism is the stuff of legend.

I thought the retooling of the MI happened in June of 2012.

Good catch, Kish.

2012, Peterson was removed as editor and the journal entered hiatus as it sought to become more mainstream to Mormon studies.[6] In March 2013, the Maxwell Institute announced the journal would relaunch as a new religious studies review journal, without a primary focus on apologetics. J. Spencer Fluhman, from BYU's department of history, was appointed editor-in-chief with a new broad-based advisory board.[8][9][10][11] The new Review changed from biannual to annual publication, and restarted its numbering, beginning at volume 1 in 2014, signifying its change in editorial direction as a new publication.[12][13][8]